tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post6634424777854486481..comments2014-12-12T05:29:46.343-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The God of the Gaps ReasoningDr. Hector Avaloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43057112182130719882007-09-06T10:29:00.000-04:002007-09-06T10:29:00.000-04:00Hi Shygetz,I'd like to see you join as well.Hi Shygetz,<BR/>I'd like to see you join as well.Lee Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12364707585142678262007-09-06T10:18:00.000-04:002007-09-06T10:18:00.000-04:00Shygetz agreed. When science is expressed deductiv...Shygetz agreed. When science is expressed <B>deductively</B> what we have is an invalid argument though.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for commenting recently. Want to join us?John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31044906487075980522007-09-06T08:28:00.000-04:002007-09-06T08:28:00.000-04:00john, I hate to nitpick, but science is performed ...john, I hate to nitpick, but science is performed inductively. We do not affirm the consequent in the sense of formal logic because we do not form firm conclusions. That is why all science is tentative and subject to further evidence.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you meant this when you wrote, but I wanted to make sure the point was clear to anyone else reading.Shygetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10569814189016816002007-09-06T04:08:00.000-04:002007-09-06T04:08:00.000-04:00John, I don't think we two disagree either, really...John, I don't think we two disagree either, really. But I will stick to my guns and insist that the GoG argument is not logically faulty: it's just bad science, unproductive, and unfalsifiable.<BR/><BR/>Dan- John didn't say "The evidence from <I>the Bible</I>" but rather "The evidence from <I>nature</I>". If you want to argue that there <I>is</I> evidence from nature for an active supernatural being in this world, a Bible quote is not terribly convincing. I could just as well argue that there is an active magical evil being in this world, quoting The Chamber of Secrets: "I am Lord Voldemort".zilchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20861168057818276622007-09-05T16:27:00.000-04:002007-09-05T16:27:00.000-04:00Zilch, read what exapologist and I wrote again. We...Zilch, read what exapologist and I wrote again. We do not disagree with each other.<BR/><BR/>In fact, science itself progresses on a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent: <BR/><BR/>If P (a scientific theory) then Q (an experiment will obtain).<BR/><BR/>Q<BR/><BR/>.: P<BR/><BR/>Knowing this doesn't stop science from progressing, does it?<BR/><BR/>But I liked you Unicorn analogy, so much I'll use it sometime myself.John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48872985353304327612007-09-05T16:10:00.000-04:002007-09-05T16:10:00.000-04:00Commenting too much altert! Oops I wrote this in a...Commenting too much altert! Oops I wrote this in a comment on the last post so I will copy this part here:<BR/><BR/><B>"The evidence from nature is that there is no active supernatural being in this world."</B><BR/><BR/>Bold and false statement friend. Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Dan Marvinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53571318801606711002007-09-05T15:21:00.000-04:002007-09-05T15:21:00.000-04:00I'll have to take issue with you, John, for claimi...I'll have to take issue with you, John, for claiming that the "God of the Gaps" argument is <I>logically</I> faulty. As exapologist pointed out at Victor's site, the problem is not with the principle, but with the practice: while God could be hiding, <I>in principle</I>, behind every raincloud, or at the base of every flagellum, the historical fact is that such hiding places are becoming scarcer and smaller all the time. As I've said before, the pressure on God must be getting tremendous! But <I>in practice</I>, the idea that some unexplained bit of order or beauty demonstrates that God must exist, so He can tweak natural law, has not been very productive of long-lived explanations.<BR/><BR/>Lamer's defense of ID, where he seems to swallow their claim that they know enough about evolution to point out examples of order (such as the flagellum) that <I>could not</I> have evolved, is particularly weak. As we all know, science abounds with cases of confidently asserted proofs or disproofs of this or that, which were subsequently overthrown when new knowledge came to light.<BR/><BR/>Lord Kelvin's dismissal of the evolutionary timescale on grounds that the Sun can only have been illuminating the Earth for a hundred million years at the most comes to mind. What Lord Kelvin could not know is that the Sun is burning nuclearly, not chemically. Similar comeuppances are in store, or are already here, for the IDers.<BR/><BR/>There's nothing logically wrong with the God of the Gaps argument. It simply has no more explanatory power than the Unicorn of the Gaps argument.zilchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.com